Incompatible browser

Internet Explorer versions 7 and older have known compatibility and security issues with modern
web standards which affect next generation Web 2.0 websites. In our attempt to deliver a superior
experience, we no longer support Internet Explorer versions 7 and older.

Please upgrade to the latest
version of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari or Chrome.

Many cars in Brazil are fuel efficient and low-emitting yet do not meet the requirements of two credits (BD&C SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and O&amp...

Inquiry

Many cars in Brazil are fuel efficient and low-emitting yet do not meet the requirements of two credits (BD&C SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and O&M SSc4: Alternative Commuting Transportation) because the vehicles have not been evaluated by CARB or ACEEE. This hinders the ability of many Brazilian projects to achieve the credit. We propose that the following Brazilian standards be included in determining whether a vehicle is considered fuel-efficient or low-emitting:a. Any vehicle achieving Four Stars in the IBAMA Nota Verde (Green Note) system, the ratings for vehicles in this system can be found at: http://servicos.ibama.gov.br/ctf/publico/sel_marca_modelo_rvep.php. This system awards stars based on a vehicle's emissions reductions and fuel type. The first three stars are earned via relatively low emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons. The fourth star is awarded for vehicles that have a CO2 emissions rate of less than 80g/km (128 g/mi). The fifth star is awarded for vehicles using alternative fuels (gasoline-ethanol mix, hybrid electric, and all-electric). b. Any vehicle receiving an A or B in the Brazilian Energy Program (PBE) of INMETRO (National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology) of the Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade. This program uses many of the same techniques that the U.S. EPA has used to evaluate fuel efficiency in American vehicles. A full description of the program is available at http://repositorios.inmetro.gov.br/bitstream/10926/1290/1/2010_NovgorodcevBranco.pdf.pdf.

Ruling

The applicant has requested that vehicles in Brazil receiving Four Stars in the IBAMA Nota Verde (Green Note) program or vehicles receiving an A or B in the INMETRO Brazilian Labeling Program for Vehicles (PBEV) be classified as low-emitting and fuel-efficient for the purposes of LEED NC 2009 SSc4.3 and LEED EB 2009 SSc4. Vehicles in Brazil may qualify as low-emitting and fuel-efficient by earning both of the following conditions:1. A score of Four Stars or above from IBAMA. This is the highest score for vehicles that are low-emitting but not necessarily fueled by alternative fuels (as research indicates that not all alternative fuels ensure improved environmental performance).2. An A from INMETRO. INMETRO uses relative criteria for different vehicle classifications. This differs from the absolute standards used by the ACEEE methodology. Since, in this instance, the USGBC preference for absolute metrics cannot be met, only the highest INMETRO score is accepted. This will ensure that the credit rewards the best fuel-efficiencies in current and future vehicles.Because the Brazilian labeling programs measure emissions differently, both programs are required to verify that a vehicle meets the low-emitting and fuel-efficient requirements. Vehicles receiving a qualifying score from one agency but not the other will not be considered eligible.

May a mixed-use project where 90% or more of the gross floor area is comprised of residential spaces be exempted from the shower and changing area requirements of SSc4.2 since most of the occupants wo...

Inquiry

May a mixed-use project where 90% or more of the gross floor area is comprised of residential spaces be exempted from the shower and changing area requirements of SSc4.2 since most of the occupants would be residents and would have showers in their units?

Ruling

If the total nonresidential square footage of a mixed-use building is less than 10% and no greater than 5,000 square feet, it is acceptable for the nonresidential use to be excluded from the shower requirements for SSc4.2: Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms. However, each use component of the building must still comply with the bicycle storage requirements of this credit.

The project is a newly constructed office building in a new development. We would like to approach this credit via Option 2 Bus Stop Proximity which requires 1 or more stops for 2 or more public, camp...

Inquiry

The project is a newly constructed office building in a new development. We would like to approach this credit via Option 2 Bus Stop Proximity which requires 1 or more stops for 2 or more public, campus or private bus lines within ¼ mile walking distance by building occupants. We have two questions:

Is it acceptable to include a bus route which is nearby (but not within ¼) that can be rerouted on an as-needed basis if building occupants call in to the bus control station requesting a pickup? We have confirmed that the city bus lines are available for temporary rerouting in these situations.

Is it acceptable to include a bus route that is sited and planned within a ¼ mile at the time the project is completed, similar to the allowance for light rail or subway as noted in paragraph three under section 4. Implementation of the LEED 2009 reference guide?

Ruling

The project team is inquiring whether it is acceptable to meet the requirements of SSc4.1 Option 2 by using a bus route that can be rerouted on an on-call basis or by using a bus route that is sited and planned—but not yet operational--within one-fourth-mile at the time of project completion.

A bus route that is more than one-fourth mile from the project building’s main entrance, but that can be re-routed on an on-call basis to be within one-fourth mile of the project building is not acceptable for credit compliance since it would not provide a consistent level of service to truly serve as an alternative transportation option. Bus lines that are planned/sited, but not yet operational, do not meet credit requirements. Applicable internationally.

Our project, a fire station, is in the design phase. SS credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation - Public Transportation Access, Option 2: Bus Stop Proximity requires the project site to be located withi...

Inquiry

Our project, a fire station, is in the design phase. SS credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation - Public Transportation Access, Option 2: Bus Stop Proximity requires the project site to be located within 1/4 mile walking distance of one or more stops for two or more bus lines usable by building occupants. Our project is situated within 1/4 mile walking distance from one currently operational bus line. The county has indicated that a second bus line is scheduled to be included within this 1/4 mile zone. The construction of this fire station is critical to the implementation of Montgomery County's master plan, which is in the early stages of implementation. This plan seeks to further develop the town into a mass transit and pedestrian oriented community. A subsequent increase in population density will necessitate this additional bus line.

Please advise on the following:1. Does the inclusion of a second planned and funded bus line as described above satisfy the SS4.1 credit requirement?2. The owner indicated that the Department of Transportation will sign a letter which confirms this commitment to a second bus line. Is this level of credit documentation sufficient? If not, please describe any additional documentation that may be required to successfully achieve this credit.

Ruling

The project team is inquiring whether the requirements of SSc4.1 Option 2 can be satisfied by a planned and funded bus line, as confirmed by the jurisdiction's Department of Transportation. Planned, sited or funded, but not yet operational, bus lines do not meet credit requirements.

This is an inquiry about the calculation of the FTE in relation to our project in Zurich, Switzerland.

In the LEED Reference Guide on page 53 the calculation of the FTE is based on a 8-hour wo...

Inquiry

This is an inquiry about the calculation of the FTE in relation to our project in Zurich, Switzerland.

In the LEED Reference Guide on page 53 the calculation of the FTE is based on a 8-hour working day. That means that an 8-hour occupant has an FTE value of 1.0. The standard working day in Switzerland contains 8.5 hours of work.

In a FTE calculation on the basis that is provided in the LEED Reference Guide the normal working day of one single person would have the FTE value of 1.0625. As a consequence of the, in case of 1000 people fulltime staff this FTE calculation would have additional number of 63 FTE in comparion to an FTE value of 1.0.

Is it possible to calculate the FTE value for this project with an 8.5 instead of 8 hour day, so that we would have the FTE value of 1.0 for a standard 8.5 hour-working day?

Ruling

The project team has inquired if projects in Switzerland may use 8.5-hours as their working day instead of 8-hours as in the US. Each full-time employee based on Swiss and US labor laws works an 8.5-hour day, which includes a half-hour unpaid lunch break and two 15-minute paid breaks. In order to maintain the baseline for projects everywhere when calculating FTE occupancy, all Swiss projects, including those industries that have an overtime work culture for full-time employees, should still use the 8.0-hour work day in their FTE calculations. Applicable internationally.

Our project is located in a medium/maximum security fenced facility that provides male offenders, between ages 12-20, academic education and prevocational training while serving their juvenile sentenc...

Inquiry

Our project is located in a medium/maximum security fenced facility that provides male offenders, between ages 12-20, academic education and prevocational training while serving their juvenile sentencing. The campus has a fully fenced perimeter and is approximately 2,000' by 1,400'. Our proposed building entrance is approximately 1,200 ft form the secured main entrance. The secured campus facility restricts vehicular access through a sally port next to the main entrance for maintenance vehicles, emergency vehicles, Contractor, and police vehicles. All visitors and employees must park outside the security fencing in their respective parking lots next to the campus entrance and enter through the main security gates into the Visitor Center. Due to security concerns, the facility does not allow bicycles beyond the provided secured bicycle racks at the main entrance.

Can we use the campus entrance of the secured facility as our "project entrance' as the center of the 1/2 mile radius for services (SSc2), in measuring the 1/4 mile distance to the bus stop (SSc4.1) and the 200 ft distance to the secure bicycle racks (SSc4.1)?

We have previously received permission to use the campus entrance as our "project entrance" for all applicable credits for a project under LEED NCv2.2 CIR 8/27/07 and are now seeking the same ruling. We feel that defining our project entrance as the campus entrance is reasonable and consistent as all employees and visitors must walk to and from the secured campus entrance to and from any building on campus.

Ruling

The project team is asking whether for a project located in a medium/maximum security fenced facility, the secure campus entrance can be assumed to be the project building entrance for purposes of measuring the one half mile radius for services (SSc2) and the one quarter mile distance to the bus stop (SSc4.1) and the 200 feet distance to secure bike racks (SSc4.2).

Yes, given that the campus entrance is the first entrance where all vehicular employee or visitor entry/exits are restricted (except for maintenance, emergency and police vehicles), and therefore is mode neutral, this approach is acceptable. This question was previously addressed in LEED Interpretation #5065 for LEED v2.2 projects. Applicable Internationally.

We welcome and value the opinions of our green building community. We are collecting feedback on LEED v4 during the 5th open commenting period. At this time, each USGBC site user may comment on the open credits.

Please note:

Only one comment per individual is allowed

Once the comment is submitted, it cannot be edited

Users may comment within the credit library, or on LEEDuser.com (but only one comment will be accepted for both sites)

Users must note if they want their comment to be private (and not viewable by the USGBC community)